Non-consent: what's off-limits?

[LaBlancheTraversee]

I see nothing forbidden in the guidelines other than bestiality or underage; on the other hand, I've heard suggestions about certain content being "allowed" or "disallowed," and that the victim has to like it or something.

I hope that that last one isn't true -- what would be the point of such a story otherwise? And it would require a whole unnecessary epilogue in which the victim has to stop crying and smile, or something. (Not to mention become morally even more "repugnant" than by just ending sensibly for sending the message that victims find rape sexy.)

But if not, then are there truly no bounds? That would be nuts ... so you could do torture scenes? Snuff? Tickling?!

 

[A_Little_Show]

As I've said, i HATE Non-Consent but enjoy Reluctant. In my opinion, an act of violence is off limits. I have a character who is stripped while she is crowd surfing. She obviously didn't consent to that explicitly, but she gets a great thrill from it. I think that is an example of non-consentual events that are forgiven after the fact.

Any kind of rape that leaves a victim damaged physically or emotionally is off limits - in my humble opinion.

What would be the point of a story about straight up rape or sexual assault with a victim who is destroyed by it? Even if he or she isn't destroyed, but it is an entirely negative experience, what's the point? Who finds that erotic? Rapists and rapist wannabes?

 

[eroticstoryspinner]

Even in noncon/reluctance Laurel will not accept a story where a party is used for sex without getting some enjoyment out of it. They may be guilty later, humiliated, object, and unwilling, but they have to be show to have gotten some pleasure out of the act at the time.

 

[LexxRuthless]

I wrote a story called Incident in the Library, and Laurel posted it to Non-consent even though I had intended it to go into Erotic Couplings. It was a few weeks before I noticed the story had gone into that category, and it surprised the hell out of me. It wasn't a problem, but I hadn't considered my story to be non-consent at all. Since it took me so long to notice, I felt silly about complaining about it. Only one comment questioned if the story belonged in that category, and the score was pretty good.

So, evidently there is a broader range of stories that can be considered non-consent than I had considered. I think what the category is really designed for is the "female rape fantasy" rather than anything like actual rape. As A_Little_Show pointed out, real-life rape isn't sexy to anyone.

 

[Weird Harold]

I see nothing forbidden in the guidelines other than bestiality or underage; on the other hand, I've heard suggestions about certain content being "allowed" or "disallowed," and that the victim has to like it or something.

Snuff is also banned.

Non-consent is a case-by-case judgement call. The distinction is "Rape fantasy is allowed; Rapist fantasy is not allowed."

 

[ElectricBlue]

Snuff is also banned.

Non-consent is a case-by-case judgement call. The distinction is "Rape fantasy is allowed; Rapist fantasy is not allowed."

That's a pretty good distinction, provided the victim ultimately enjoys it - LaBlanche, that's the site owner's policy so the buck stopped long ago.

 

[ThisNameIsntTakenYet]

Generally, accepted stories tend to be more on the reluctance side instead of straight up non-consent. Characters might be conflicted about feeling good yet feeling like they shouldn't be doing this, or be forced into embarrassing situations that they secretly enjoy, yet wouldn't want to be part of voluntarily.

As stated, you should be good if you don't go too extreme on the torture or rape front. What you mentioned about crying characters? Probably too far, if you ask me. I don't read much non-con, but the popular stories that I've seen from that category generally have the conflict of "why do I like this?". Some struggles of giving up control and just going with the moment, etc. Of course that's just one way of handling the category, but it seems to work.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I wrote a story called Incident in the Library, and Laurel posted it to Non-consent even though I had intended it to go into Erotic Couplings. It was a few weeks before I noticed the story had gone into that category, and it surprised the hell out of me. It wasn't a problem, but I hadn't considered my story to be non-consent at all.

...really?

She wasn't able to protest when he placed his cock against her drenched asshole and drove it inside.

He had just assumed that a cheating slut like Sharon would love getting her ass fucked. Sharon had never let anyone do that before. Her fiancé had hinted he wanted to try it. She had told him in no uncertain terms that her asshole was "exit only." Now she was desperately sucking in air as Frank drove his big dick in and out of her ass. Her eyes were wild when she looked back over her shoulder. She tried to protest—tried to shake her head, tried to scream "Nooo!"

It was too late.

That seems like pretty clear-cut nonconsent to me. Other parts of that scene were consensual, but not that bit.

 

[LaBlancheTraversee]

Wow, this is all really confusing and I think I'm just going to stay away entirely.

I get that you don't want serial killers using Literotica stories as mental ammo, both for ethical and public relations reasons. Thus my questions at the end of my post. At the same time, if the reader comes to the story to be taken, then why not let her be taken from within? Why tell her how to feel with some distracting and unrealistic curveball about how the character came to see matters from the rapist's side?

Moreover, while I understand limits on extreme violence, an artificial requirement that the victim enjoy the rape also defeats the purpose of the genre for those who crave the "fantasies of control" that the genre advertises. For this point it should be stressed that by no means do all those who fantasize about control actually intend to carry out sexual assault -- to the contrary, it's a common (if taboo) fetish.

 

[KeithD]

PLEASE. These are Web site policies. No one posting/reading this discussion board can do a damn thing about the policies. Please take it directly (and solely) to the submissions editor/Web site owner, Laurel, via the only way she connects, the Private Message system (top right of this page if you have private messaging turned on). We get this arguing constantly here on something we can do nothing about.

 

[LaBlancheTraversee]

PLEASE. These are Web site policies. No one posting/reading this discussion board can do a damn thing about the policies. Please take it directly (and solely) to the submissions editor/Web site owner, Laurel, via the only way she connects, the Private Message system (top right of this page if you have private messaging turned on). We get this arguing constantly here on something we can do nothing about.

Fucking hell, man, did you take your tranqs today?

I know all that. Just expressing my opinion.

Easy. Easy. Deeeeeeeeep breaths, now.

 

[KeithD]

Fucking hell, man, did you take your tranqs today?

I know all that. Just expressing my opinion.

Easy. Easy. Deeeeeeeeep breaths, now.

If you knew all that, why did you subject us with it again? That's even worse than not knowing how tiresome and frustrating having those opinions thrown at us constantly is.

 

[jaF0]

If I could influence the rules, there would be NO 'non-con' at all. I don't tolerate any form of force, duress or abuse.

Coercion and domination are borderline but they would have to be more playful than not.

 

[astuffedshirt_perv]

...really?

That seems like pretty clear-cut nonconsent to me. Other parts of that scene were consensual, but not that bit.

To clarify, she 'wasn't able to protest' because she was in the midst of an orgasm and she 'tried to scream' but then didn't. Not that clear-cut.

 

[LaBlancheTraversee]

This doesn't read like you expressing an opinion. This reads to me as if you don't believe the rules have to be followed, and that's just wrong.

Let's draw a parallel using your flawed logic, hm?

I "really hope" I can take back some raw-milk cheese from France.

According to you, that means I believe that customs law doesn't apply to me.

In reality, it means I'll be annoyed if I cannot bring any back -- yet, in any case, I will comply with the law because it's the law.

 

[LaBlancheTraversee]

If you knew all that, why did you subject us with it again? That's even worse than not knowing how tiresome and frustrating having those opinions thrown at us constantly is.

As the Jews suffered under Hitler, so does KeithD suffer without recourse the excruciating and inescapable burden of my tiresome, frustrating editorials.

 

[jaF0]

Godwinned in 18.

 

[LaBlancheTraversee]

Flawed logic or not, you are still questioning the rules, hoping for a way out.

Presuming to question the rules? Ha! What is this, 21st century Western society?!

 

[jaF0]

Presuming to question the rules? Ha! What is this, ...?!

A privately owned website.

 

[KeithD]

As the Jews suffered under Hitler, so does KeithD suffer without recourse the excruciating and inescapable burden of my tiresome, frustrating editorials.

Yep, you're taking the usual nasty path on this after wasting the time and attention of those who thought you might be someone they could help. Welcome to ignore.

 

[ChloeTzang]

Flawed logic or not, you are still questioning the rules, hoping for a way out.

There is no way out. There is no wiggle room. There are only Laurel’s rules, and (metaphorically speaking, coz it’s a guy thing) pissing into the wind.

Altho one day I’m going to write a consent / non consent story where she’s saying “Don’t ... Stop.... please...” and he’s hearing “Don’t stop, please...”

 

[LaBlancheTraversee]

There is no way out. There is no wiggle room. There are only Laurel’s rules, and (metaphorically speaking, coz it’s a guy thing) pissing into the wind.

Altho one day I’m going to write a consent / non consent story where she’s saying “Don’t ... Stop.... please...” and he’s hearing “Don’t stop, please...”

Okay. Got it. Appreciate all the clarifications, and if I ever feel strongly enough to bother I'll DM Laurel.

I just don't appreciate everyone freaking the fuck out like veterans at a fireworks show because I DARED to express a nuanced opinion on the subject rather than immediately escalate my case. Calm the almighty fuck down. Not everyone comes here in urgent need of immediate literary care. This is a discussion forum, not a customer help line.

 

[ChloeTzang]

Okay. Got it. Appreciate all the clarifications, and if I ever feel strongly enough to bother I'll DM Laurel.

I just don't appreciate everyone freaking the fuck out like veterans at a fireworks show because I DARED to express a nuanced opinion on the subject short of messaging Laurel. Calm the almighty fuck down. This is a discussion forum.

Ohhh, it’s an AH thing. Once you’ve seen it happen half a dozen times you laugh. The first time it happens to one personally it’s a little bit adrenaline inducing but then you start to enjoy it.... and then you join in...

But you never take it to seriously

 

[LaBlancheTraversee]

Ohhh, it’s an AH thing. Once you’ve seen it happen half a dozen times you laugh. The first time it happens to one personally it’s a little bit adrenaline inducing but then you start to enjoy it.... and then you join in...

But you never take it to seriously

They're so melodramatic, though.

I'd hate to see them on political forums:

-- We should raise the minimum wage!
-- STOP THAT RIGHT NOW. We can't do anything about that here, so write to your representative or go away. Or do you think the law doesn't apply to you??!!!

 

[OmnislashXX]

Yep, you're taking the usual nasty path on this after wasting the time and attention of those who thought you might be someone they could help. Welcome to ignore.

Yes, but you can't see his arguments, therefore you won't be able to do what you love best... to troll. And I mean, who doesn't love to troll every now and then?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LexxRuthless View Post
I wrote a story called Incident in the Library, and Laurel posted it to Non-consent even though I had intended it to go into Erotic Couplings. It was a few weeks before I noticed the story had gone into that category, and it surprised the hell out of me. It wasn't a problem, but I hadn't considered my story to be non-consent at all.
...really?

Quote:
She wasn't able to protest when he placed his cock against her drenched asshole and drove it inside.

He had just assumed that a cheating slut like Sharon would love getting her ass fucked. Sharon had never let anyone do that before. Her fiancé had hinted he wanted to try it. She had told him in no uncertain terms that her asshole was "exit only." Now she was desperately sucking in air as Frank drove his big dick in and out of her ass. Her eyes were wild when she looked back over her shoulder. She tried to protest—tried to shake her head, tried to scream "Nooo!"

It was too late.
That seems like pretty clear-cut nonconsent to me. Other parts of that scene were consensual, but not that bit.
Today 01:17 AM

Lol.